Is There a Conclusion Here?

There is.

Looking at the history of computers and writing and the increased prevalence of using technologies for writing instruction this history depicts, as well as considering these technologies in light of technological literacy and our responsibilities, as educators, at a time when our traditional notions of writing--what it is, how we do it, and the situations it is embedded within--are being challenged, we must continue to reflect on new possibilities that will help us sustain and advance our writing pedagogies. Our traditions--traditional classrooms we teach in and the pedagogies they foster--are not inadequate; good teaching transcends time. However, they do not take into account the transformations technologies are imparting on our composing processes, and therefore they present, in the context of writing instruction that is grounded in rhetorical theories such as social-epistemic ideology, an understanding of writing that is partial.

As I suggest in this article, the wiki application offers a public textual landscape, which can highlight the social context of writing for students. Through the use of the wiki, and Web 2.0 applications like the wiki, we can add depth to our pedagogies and to students' understanding of the writing process, such as audience theory, collaboration, and revision. But the wiki's use alone will not necessarily lead to deeper understanding. Teachers must take control of this application, using it for their own purposes, reflecting on its pedagogical implications, and deciding upon a use that most effectively meets the demands of their classes. They should also be prepared: the wiki has challenges and complications of its own. I can attest to this, as I experienced them first-hand in the development of this article. Technical complications like formatting difficulties (font size, line-spacing) and server crashes (which fortunately did not lead to a loss of information due to the wiki's automatic update feature but led to annoyance and lost time) seem to be prevalent. 

We should not dismiss applications alone based on their complications and challenges; otherwise, we would have abandoned some of our traditional pedagogies long ago. Instead, we should consider the effects of these challenges on our use of these technologies. For instance, formatting seems to be a predominant issue, at least with this particular wiki application (which I might argue is a result of its free nature and a stealthy motivation to upgrade for a small monthly fee), but this will not prohibit me from using the application in my classes. It simply means that I will not be assessing formatting in evaluations of assignments developed and completed using this wiki. But this also means that the design of the assignments will have to take this complication into consideration while also meeting the needs and interests of audience possibilities.

In closing I would like to say that our responsibilities as educators lie where tradition meets evolution. It is our responsibility to engage in critical reflection of our pedagogies so that we can find a balance between our traditional classrooms and evolving classrooms. By carefully gauging this balance between the old and the new, we can prepare our students for a world of conflicting and divergent communications, and ensure that they are well-versed in the rhetorical aspects that influence these communications. So as we look to the future of writing studies, we should consider the role that wikis, and other forms of networked, social software, assume in these studies.

We should consider the following:

• Apart from the claims made in this article, how else do wikis transform the writing process? How do they offer another lens through which to teach rhetorical theories?
• How do these applications change traditional notions of the classroom as community?
•  And what are the practical considerations that teachers should engage when using these applications as pedagogical tools?